| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/05/2005 09:31:10 PM · #26 |
Exactly. And on a 2D monitor a photo of a rubber duck and a photo of a photo of a rubber duck can be exactly the same.
Message edited by author 2005-04-05 21:44:54.
|
|
|
|
04/05/2005 09:34:09 PM · #27 |
| I think this was another of those pesky common sense things... did the photographer take a photo of a rubber ducky, as requested? No. Someone else did (or maybe he did beforehand), but that was a stated, DQ-able requirement for this challenge. It's just speculation on my part. The SC may have had other reasons. |
|
|
|
04/05/2005 09:45:42 PM · #28 |
I dont think it was a pesky common sense thing in any way. I always though that a 2D representation and a 3D representation of an object were interchangable when presented in a 2D format. In many ways I feel that SC has ruled that my knowledge of the english langauge and hence my interpretation of the challenge is wrong. I feel SC made a subjective decision, but as I said once and I'll repeat again I accept their decision as final.
Message edited by author 2005-04-05 21:48:29.
|
|
|
|
04/06/2005 03:12:40 AM · #29 |
I was with you Nico, up to the point where I found out you didn't take the original photo of the duck. Since that was a significant part of the challenge, I am now inclined to side with the SC. I think you could have only pulled off the shot if you just used the monitor to display the blue background.
...but then that fountain would have probably shorted out the monitor. ;-) |
|
|
|
04/06/2005 04:04:29 AM · #30 |
Yeah - sorry nico - but the major reason for the impact of this image is the photo of the duck suspended on the water. Taking a photo of someone elses photo (even with modifications and a few lumps in the foreground) and passing it off as your own artwork is a pretty serious copyright infringement.
(Don't mean to sound harsh - I know there was no malice intended).
As an example - there was a case a few years ago (the name eludes me now - it's a US case so I didn't actually ever have to study it) in which a sculptor created a statue based on a photograph taken by another artist. Now, even though the photo itself was pretty crap, and the sculpture sold for somewhere in the six figure range, the photographer was entitled to all the money earned from the sculpture.
Though, someone elses photo or not - I do have to congratulate you on the lighting effect you've achieved - it's very funky! |
|
|
|
04/06/2005 04:55:40 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by samtrundle:
As an example - there was a case a few years ago (the name eludes me now - it's a US case so I didn't actually ever have to study it) in which a sculptor created a statue based on a photograph taken by another artist. Now, even though the photo itself was pretty crap, and the sculpture sold for somewhere in the six figure range, the photographer was entitled to all the money earned from the sculpture. |
That's interesting... I'll have to read up on that. Copyright is very complex and I would think that said sculpture would be protected under two common areas: 1) derivative works and 2) the very low threshold of "difference" required for two works to be considered unique under copyright law. Not to mention the fact that a sculpture is so significantly different in nature from a photo, so even the provision against "intent to copy" shouldn't come into play. (There's also a suit against Skyy Vodka by a photographer whose work he thought was "copied" when Skyy fired him after seeing proofs and hiring other photographers to shoot essentially the same photo, more willing to sell all rights - as a side note, their bottle was considered not protected by copyright).
If you've got any more info on this, I'd really appreciate it.
As far as this photo, I thought it was the best of the bunch. How nico got there... *shrug* |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/14/2025 12:25:02 AM EDT.
